SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Supertall Construction (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=323)
-   -   NEW YORK | Central Park Tower (Nordstrom)| 1,550 FT | 131 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191095)

RobEss Dec 24, 2017 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8028293)
...the western half of the block is crap and unlandmarked. Hopefully it will have a major tower in the future.

Seems unlikely, given that the building is a functioning ConEd steam plant. The other clunky building adjacent to the Pyramid is a major DSNY hub, which also isn't likely to move.

NYguy Dec 25, 2017 2:59 AM

An image for this Christmas eve as we look forward to an even more exciting year next year....:cheers:




jeff.overs

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4591/3...a96ccfd1_b.jpg



https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4591/3...87655bf9_h.jpg



https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4591/3...9306aea8_k.jpg

mrnyc Dec 25, 2017 3:39 AM

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/...psdmiguide.jpg

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/...psjce0dptw.jpg

Crawford Dec 25, 2017 5:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobEss (Post 8028670)
Seems unlikely, given that the building is a functioning ConEd steam plant. The other clunky building adjacent to the Pyramid is a major DSNY hub, which also isn't likely to move.

I don't see why it's unlikely. ConEd is divesting itself of real estate, and the fact that the site has no development restrictions make it much more valuable as a development site than steam generation. ConEd has been very open that they want to eventually sell.

The DSNY property probably has no chance of moving, as A. It's new, B. The zoning doesn't even allow for megadevelopment and C. It has a critical long-term use.

Prezrezc Dec 25, 2017 2:27 PM

Juat saying.....

But to this day it simply astounds me how that post-1974 classic, beautiful contrast between Gracie Mansion and 9 West 57th can stand up to the Park Lane Hotel's worst possible side.

A lesser mini-assemblage would've beenutterly wrecked by it.

chris08876 Dec 25, 2017 3:48 PM

The Park Lane hotel will be replaced down the line. I don't see it lasting another 10 years. The property itself is a prime candidate for a future tallest.

Ideally, as the current supply both present and u/c dries up, when a new cycle begins, it would be nice to see a high end residential (ideally mixed used with a hotel + condos atop) rise.

Witkoff has plans for the site, the question is when it will all come to fruition. Right now they are on hold, as he shelved the plan back in 2016. But it can always be revisited.

NY is fast approaching, in certain neighborhoods, the prospect where a super tall will yield a feasible profit under certain market conditions. Towers on average being proposed north of 34th Street have been reaching for the sky. Given the flurry of 800 ft towers. As opposed to the typical Midtown Plateau of 650 ft, the plateau is moving towards the 800 ft mark.

NY will become the super tall capital in the next decade. I'd expect it to not be dethroned after that, as it is so built up, that super talls will be way more common.

NYguy Dec 25, 2017 5:07 PM

Comparing renders of this tower, which will be topped off sooner than it seems...



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...WLnu4u.r16.jpg



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...NJPUEu.r18.jpg



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...JzIOGr.r19.jpg



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...3RDDP.r16c.jpg



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...JZkII.r18c.jpg



http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...eZjfn.r19c.jpg

NYCrules Dec 25, 2017 7:33 PM

Guys, is 1550 figure still the highest occupied floor for this tower leaving room for the addition of crown or parapet to further push it to the equivalent in feet of 500 meters or is it by now for sure the final confirmed height of the actual structure itself?

NYguy Dec 25, 2017 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCrules (Post 8028971)
Guys, is 1550 figure still the highest occupied floor for this tower leaving room for the addition of crown or parapet to further push it to the equivalent in feet of 500 meters or is it by now for sure the final confirmed height of the actual structure itself?



http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...Pa77Smf.c1.JPG



http://a4.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1/1...QkzeH0S.c3.JPG

NYCrules Dec 25, 2017 10:13 PM

^^ aha, thanks a lot!

BVictor1 Dec 26, 2017 5:45 AM

12/21/17

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...266916/enhance

TowerDude Dec 26, 2017 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobEss (Post 8028670)
Seems unlikely, given that the building is a functioning ConEd steam plant. The other clunky building adjacent to the Pyramid is a major DSNY hub, which also isn't likely to move.

Manhattan needs a lot more DSNY hubs, it'll help keep rents affordable.

NYguy Dec 27, 2017 12:58 AM

A cold day out, likely my last pics of the year for this one...


DECEMBER 26, 2017


1.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180212.jpg


2.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180227.jpg


3.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180333.jpg


4.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180347.jpg


5.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180407.jpg


6.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180427.jpg


7.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180446.jpg


8.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180501.jpg


9.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_180520.jpg


10.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183838.jpg


11.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183850.jpg


12.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183902.jpg


13.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183913.jpg


14.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183929.jpg


15.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183944.jpg


16.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_183957.jpg


17.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184011.jpg


18.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184029.jpg


19.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184041.jpg


20.
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184054.jpg


21.

http://a4.pbase.com/o10/06/102706/1/...226_184107.jpg

mrnyc Dec 27, 2017 12:58 PM

its not the 1550’ on the schematic that’s intriguing, it’s the +1550’!

pianowizard Dec 27, 2017 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc (Post 8029623)
its not the 1550’ on the schematic that’s intriguing, it’s the +1550’!

Ground level is labeled +0.00', indicating that the plus sign merely means positive. I would be excited if +1550 were 1550+, which would mean "at least 1550 ft".

ILNY Dec 28, 2017 12:54 AM

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4736/...35cc0940_o.jpg
225 W 57th St (Central Park Tower by NyConstructionPhoto, on Flickr

chris08876 Dec 28, 2017 12:57 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Looks like its 750-770 ft based on the reference to Time Warner.

Also, this angle is beautiful because we can use 432 Park as the measuring stick. Now, keep in mind that 432 Park is back in the distance several blocks, so if we moved it to this parcel location (CPT one), it would appear taller than at its current position, but for the sake of mental exercise, let's use it as a measuring stick, and just add 150 ft to that.

Also, Verre looks like it has a 100-120 ft more until top out.

Prezrezc Dec 28, 2017 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianowizard (Post 8029836)
Ground level is labeled +0.00', indicating that the plus sign merely means positive. I would be excited if +1550 were 1550+, which would mean "at least 1550 ft".

I didn't check that diagram too well; but did it suggest 1550+ AMSL?

Or is that presupposed?

chris08876 Dec 28, 2017 1:38 AM

1,629' is the height factoring in elevation. From sea level, at 0', it will appear to be 1,629 ft. Similar concept with the ESB, which appears much taller due to the elevation or most of Midtown really, especially going towards 6th and 59th, in which there is an incline. Similarly you will see the decline as you walk down 5th towards the Flat Iron. The island itself is very hilly, and even part of Midtown you can see this. Washington Heights really gives you an appreciation for how hilly the island can be.

Prezrezc Dec 28, 2017 4:11 PM

Ah....

Quite surprising given all the verticality we do see.

I hope I'm still not asking the question you answered above but:

Let's go on the assumption that 1500'+ mentioned in the document is the inferred height above street level, i.e. all documents of this type use height above street level as the benchmark. And let's apply the "topographical" condition you mentioned.

Are they throwing in the + operator to suggest the possibility of an additionl design element...i.e. the spire oft-debated here?


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.